IIY  Of 

I3RARY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/whatisrevenuestaOOappl 


REVENUE  STANDARD? 


^aA^EYIEW 


SECRETARY  WALKER'S 

REPORT  ON  THE  TARIFF. 


BY  NATHAN  APPLETON. 


BOSTON: 

1846. 

EASTBURN'S  PRESS 


LIBRARY  U.  OF  I.  ORBANA-CHAMPAIKfi 


THE  REVENUE  STANDARD. 


[FROM  THE  NATIONAL  INTELLIGENCER,  AUGUST,  1845.] 


We  have  seen  it  announced  under  the  hand  of  Mr.  Secre- 
tary Walker,  that  “ the  tariff  must  be  reduced  to  the  revenue 
standard,”  and  that  his  chief  occupation,  at  present,  is  with 
the  details  of  this  measure.  It  becomes  important  then,  to 
know  what  is  to  be  understood  by  the  expression,  “ revenue 
standard which  is  about  as  definite  as  that  of  “ a judicious 
tariff” 

The  process  of  reduction  would  imply  that  the  present 
tariff  produces  too  much  revenue,  but  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  the  Secretary  is  much  troubled  on  this  score.  The 
amount  of  nett  revenue  from  customs  for  the  year  ending 
30th  June,  1844,  was  twenty-six  millions  one  hundred  and 
eighty-three  thousand  dollars.  We  are  not  advised  what  has 
been  the  precise  amount  for  the  year  which  has  just  expired, 
but  as  we  have  the  amount  in  the  Treasury  on  the  1st  day 
of  July,  1845,  something  below  that  on  hand  a year  ago,  it 
is  evident  there  has  been  no  excess  of  revenue  during  the 
fiscal  year  which  ended  on  that  day.  With  the  various  con- 
tingencies connected  with  the  annexation  of  Texas  before 
us,  it  would  seem  to  be  altogether  premature  to  decide  that 
we  shall  have  any  excess  of  revenue  for  the  year  to  come  ; 
especially,  whilst  we  have  a debt  of  fifteen  millions,  to  the 
extinction  of  which  any  surplus  may  be  applied.  It  is  prob- 
able that  twenty-six  millions  may  be  taken  as  the  fair  aver- 
age revenue  to  be  derived  from  the  present  tariff,  and  it 
would  seem  to  be  quite  time  enough  to  reduce  it  when  we 
find  ourselves  troubled  with  an  actual  excess. 

It  is  true,  a certain  set  of  politicians  denounced  the  tariff 
in  advance,  as  too  high  to  produce  revenue,  and  prophesied 
most  emphatically  that  it  must  be  reduced  in  order  to  in- 


fZ-cial 


4 


, , i crease  the  revenue  We  do  not  suppose,  after  our  actual  ex- 
pesri^nee,  that' th, is  can  be  the  meaning  of  the  Secretary. 
The  experiment  would  seem  too  hazardous,  for  the  head  of 
the  Treasury  to  be  willing  to  try  it.  Every  one  knows  that 
any  considerable  increase  of  our  imports,  would  produce  a 
crisis  in  the  money  market,  by  causing  an  export  of  specie. 
For  the  last  six  months,  the  exchanges  have  been  constantly 
on  the  very  verge  of  the  turning  point  which  would  induce 
the  shipment  of  specie,  occasionally  going  beyond  it ; so  that, 
in  fact,  the  banks  in  the  Atlantic  cities  have  actually  parted 
with  that  portion  of  their  specie  which  may  have  been  con- 
sidered somewhat  superfluous.  Any  further  export,  to  the 
extent  of  a few  millions,  would  produce  an  immediate  sensa- 
tion. The  probability  of  this  is  quite  sufficient,  without  the 
stimulus  of  a reduction  of  duties  in  any  of  the  leading  articles 
of  our  consumption.  We  give  Mr.  Secretary  Walker  credit 
for  too  much  sagacity,  to  be  willing,  voluntarily,  to  invite 
a money  pressure,  with  its  accompanying  paralysis  of  indus- 
try, and  the  eventual  poverty  of  the  exchequer. 

What  then  can  he  mean  by  the  cabalistic  phrase,  “ reduction 
to  the  revenue  standard  ?”  The  tariff  of  1842,  was  emphat- 
ically a revenue  measure.  Its  immediate  object  was  revenue — 
revenue  sufficient  to  restore  the  means  and  credit  of  a bank- 
rupt Treasury.  And  admirably  has  it  answered  its  purpose. 
It  undertook  to  do  this  with  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  in- 
dustry of  the  country,  and  its  friends  think  that  it  has  ac- 
complished this  object,  also,  most  happily.  All  must  admit 
that,  under  its  operation,  the  whole  country  has  enjoyed  the 
highest  degree  of  prosperity.  What,  then,  can  be  the  motive 
for  change  ? None  can  be  imagined  but  the  requisitions  of 
the  fell  spirit  of  party.  A demonstration  at  least  must  be 
made,  in  order  to  satisfy  the  pledges  made  to  the  South  on 
this  subject.  Mr.  Secretary  Walker  is  called  on,  as  a matter 
of  course,  to  show  up  the  deformities  of  this  monster  of  a 
tariff,  which  has  been  so  often  denounced  from  the  stump,  as 
a cunning  device  to  make  the  rich  richer  and  the  poor  poorer. 
We  wish  him  joy  of  the  task. 

Fortunately,  an  analysis  of  the  operation  of  the  tariff  is 


5 


not  difficult.  It  has,  in  fact,  been  made  by  the  late  Secre- 
retary  Bibb,  in  a document  prepared  and  published  by  order 
of  the  Senate,  on  the  1st  of  February,  1845.  ( Senate  Doc. 

No.  109,  2c?  session,  28 th  Congress.)  It  gives  a table  of 
every  article  of  import  during  the  year  ending  30th  June, 
1844,  with  the  amount  of  duty  accruing  from  it,  with  the 
actual  rate  of  duty  on  each  article,  whether  laid  ad  valorem 
or  specifically. 

As  this  document  is  not  very  generally  known,  we  propose 
making  some  extracts  from  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  public. 
It  is,  in  fact,  a document  of  the  greatest  interest  in  reference 
to  the  whole  question.  The  average  rate  on  goods  paying 
duty  is  34.64  per  cent.  The  article  paying  the  highest  rate 
of  duty,  imported  in  any  considerable  quantity,  is  that  of 
spirits , the  rate  varying  on  brandy,  rum,  and  gin,  from  129 
to  167  per  cent.,  and  producing  one  million  one  hundred  and 
twenty-two  thousand  dollars  of  revenue.  We  shall  be  curi- 
ous to  see  what  reduction  shall  be  made  on  these,  the  very 
highest  rates  of  duty  in  the  tariff,  in  order  to  bring  them  to 
the  revenue  standard , instead  of  the  moral  standard  under 
which  they  were  established. 

The  most  important  article  in  the  whole  tariff,  is  that  of 
brown  sugar , which  pays  a duty  of  66  per  cent.,  producing 
four  and  a half  million  dollars  revenue,  to  which  may  be 
added  molasses,  which  adds  upwards  of  another  million,  with 
a duty  between  39  and  40  per  cent.  These  high  duties  on 
two  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  are  cheerfully  paid  by  the 
North,  for  the  purpose  of  affording  protection  to  the  great 
Southern  staple  of  sugar,  withdrawing  a great  mass  of  slave 
labor  from  the  overdone  production  of  cotton  ; and  thus,  in 
fact,  acting  directly  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  slave  region 
of  the  South.  We  are  also  curious  to  see  how  Mr.  Secretary 
Walker  will  treat  this  matter  of  sugar  and  molasses. 

With  the  new  sugar  region  of  his  darling  Texas  coming 
into  the  Union,  will  he  take  two  or  three  millions  off  these 
articles  and  put  them  on  tea  and  coffee,  now  free  of  duty  ? 
To  the  consumer,  it  has  been  well  said,  to  be  all  the  same 
whether  the  duty  on  a dish  of  tea  or  coffee,  be  divided  be- 


6 


v 


tween  them  and  the  sweetening,  or  laid  wholly  on  the  latter. 
But  it  is  a test  question  of  principle,  and  we  apprehend  will 
call  into  action  all  the  ingenuity  of  the  Secretary. 

Next  in  importance  comes  the  article  of  iron,  in  its  various 
forms.  Pig  iron  pays  a duty  of  67  per  cent.,  rolled  bar  iron,  88. 
These  two  articles  produced  a revenue  of  upwards  of  a mil- 
lion of  dollars  under  these  high  rates  of  duty  ; with  those  on 
their  kindred  manufactures  the  highest  in  the  tariff.  No  doubt 
a reduction  of  the  duty  on  iron  to  20  or  25  per  cent.,  (sup- 
posed to  be  about  the  revenue  standard,)  would  immensely 
increase  the  importation,  and  perhaps  increase  the  revenue. 
But  it  would,  in  the  same  degree,  put  out  the  furnaces  of 
Pennsylvania;  it  would  arrest  the  present  rush  of  capital 
into  the  iron  business.  Iron  and  its  coarser  manufactures 
consist  of  direct  abstract  labor.  A high  duty  upon  iron,  can 
only  be  defended  on  the  principle  of  direct  positive  protec- 
tion to  our  own  labor.  Cheap  iron  and  cheap  labor  are 
synonymous  terms ; they  must  go  together.  This  article 
presents  another  test  question,  and  we  have  equal  curiosity  to 
see  how  the  Secretary  will  present  it  to  the  electors  of  Penn- 
sylvania, who  voted  for  Mr.  Polk,  as  a better  friend  to  the 
tariff  than  Mr.  Clay.  The  coal  of  Pennsylvania  is  another 
article  protected  with  a duty  of  64  per  cent.,  producing  a 
revenue  of  one  hundred  and  fifty-two  thousand  dollars,  the 
greater  part  paid  by  Massachusetts,  the  chief  consumer  of 
Nova  Scotia  coal.  Salt  pays  a duty  of  72  per  cent.,  and 
produces  a revenue  of  six  hundred  and  fifty-nine  thousand 
dollars.  Such  is  the  operation  of  this  tariff  on  the  leading 
articles  of  our  consumption  in  the  cruder  productions  of  the 
country. 

We  now  come  to  those  requiring  higher  skill  in  the  manu- 
facture, and  more  capital  for  their  establishment. 

Woollen  manufactures  pay  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  40  per 
cent.,  and  produce  a revenue  of  upwards  of  two  millions  of 
dollars.  This  manufacture  has  always  given  rise  to  the  most 
difficult  questions  in  the  arrangement  of  the  tariff,  owing  to 
the  difficulty  of  adjusting  the  duty  on  wool  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  both  wool-growers  and  the  manufacturers,  whilst  our 


7 


own  production  of  wool  was  much  below  our  consumption. 
This  difficulty  is  fast  disappearing.  The  increase  in  the 
production  of  wool,  more  especially  in  the  Western  States,  is 
furnishing  us  a full  supply,  except  of  the  very  coarsest  sorts, 
costing  under  seven  cents  a pound.  In  this  state  of  things, 
any  considerable  reduction  of  the  duty,  which  will  materially 
increase  the  importation  of  woollen  manufactures,  will  act 
directly  upon  the  price  of  the  raw  material,  reducing  it  in 
proportion.  The  duty  of  40  per  cent,  is  sufficiently  reasona- 
ble as  a mere  revenue  duty,  and  falls  chiefly  on  the  higher 
branches  of  the  manufacture,  worn  by  the  richer  portions  of 
the  community;  whilst  the  coarser  articles,  for  common 
clothing  and  the  common  carpetings,  are  furnished  by  our 
own  manufacture,  under  our  improved  machinery,  at  prices 
so  low  as  to  leave  no  reasonable  ground  of  complaint  as  to 
prices,  and  effectually  to  shut  out  foreign  competition. 

We  come  now  to  the  most  important  of  our  manufactures, 
that  of  cotton — w hich  exhibits  the  greatest  triumph  of  the 
protective  policy,  which  has  attracted  to  it  the  greatest 
amount  of  capital,  at  the  same  time  that  its  fabrics  have  been 
in  the  greatest  degree  reduced  in  price.  It  is  not,  perhaps, 
surprising  that  its  success  should  have  made  it  the  object  of 
the  especial  hatred  and  abuse  of  the  enemies  of  all  protection. 
Mr.  Secretary  Walker  may,  therefore,  very  probably  feel  him- 
self called  on  to  exercise  all  his  ingenuity  in  finding  grounds 
of  attack  upon  this  manufacture.  We  challenge  him  to  the 
strictest  scrutiny — to  the  fullest  collection  of  facts. 

It  is  well  known  that  this  manufacture  has  grown  up  un- 
der the  protection  of  a specific  duty,  in  the  form  of  a minimum 
valuation,  introduced  by  South  Carolina  in  1816,  but  which 
has  been  since  repudiated  by  that  State  in  terms  of  the 
grossest  billingsgate.  The  present  tariff  levies  a duty  of  six 
cents,  at  least,  the  square  yard,  on  ail  manufactures  of  which 
cotton  is  a component  part,  and  when  printed  or  colored,  of 
nine  cents.  The  table  informs  us  that  the  whole  amount  of 
revenue  derived  from  goods  to  which  the  minimum  principle 
is  applied,  was  $4,273,000,  averaging  38  per  cent,  on  the 
whole  cost,  and  which  is  thus  classified : 


8 


Rates  of  duty. 

$1,121,000  from  goods  costing  above  the  minimum,  30  per  cent. 

2,574,000  from  printed  and  col’d  goods,  at  9c.  s.  q.  43  do. 

544,000  from  plain  goods,  at  6 cents  square  yard,  45£  do. 

34,000  from  velvets,  &e.  at  10^  cents  sq.  yard,  35  do. 

We  trust  the  Secretary  will  give  this  subject  of  the  cotton 
manufacture,  a thorough  examination  in  all  its  bearings  ; that 
he  will  ascertain  what  description  of  articles  we  manufacture, 
what  we  import,  what  we  export,  and  what  we  consume, 
with . the  comparative  prices.  We  will  venture  to  predict 
what  will  be  the  result  of  such  an  examination.  He  will  find 
that  in  all  the  lower  branches  of  the  manufacture,  in  all  those 
goods  in  most  common  use,  and  which  constitute  the  con- 
sumption of  the  masses,  our  own  manufacture  furnishes  not 
only  an  abundant  supply  for  our  own  consumption,  but  a 
constant  and  increasing  export  in  competition  with  other  na- 
tions. He  will  find,  on  obtaining  samples  of  the  goods  actu- 
ally imported,  that  they  consist,  in  a very  great  measure,  of 
the  higher-priced  fanciful  articles,  mostly  mixtures  of  cotton 
with  wool  and  silk,  worn  by  the  rich,  and  that,  in  this  article 
especially,  this  large  amount  of  revenue  is  derived  from  what 
may  be  termed  luxuries.  He  will  learn  that  the  clamor  of 
certain  papers,  like  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  of  the  cot- 
ton minimum  being  a severe  tax  on  the  clothing  of  the  poor, 
is  the  merest  humbuggery ; and  that  the  effect  of  the  mini- 
mum is,  in  fact,  most  admirable  as  a mere  revenue  measure, 
not  only  as  a security  against  fraud,  but  as  levying  the  high- 
est duty  on  those  productions  of  fancy,  where  it  is  most 
readily  paid  by  the  consumers  who  choose  to  indulge  them- 
selves in  such  luxuries. 

He  will  learn,  it  is  true,  that  the  manufacture  is  at  this 
moment  in  a state  of  great  prosperity,  and  that  the  profits 
have  never  been  greater;  but  he  will  learn  that  the  most 
profitable  branch  of  the  manufacture  is  that  of  making  goods 
for  the  export  trade,  especially  for  the  China  market.  And 
he  will  learn,  in  this  connexion,  that  since  the  opening  of 
the  China  trade,  cotton  manufactures  have  also  greatly  ad- 
vanced in  price  in  England;  and  that  the  profits  of  their 
manufacturers  are  probably  even  greater  than  our  own.  He 


9 


will  also  learn  that  a greater  amount  of  capital  is  now  going 
into  this  manufacture,  in  all  its  branches,  than  at  any  former 
period ; that,  throughout  the  whole  country,  every  establish- 
ment for  making  machinery  is  in  full  employment,  and  con- 
stantly increasing  their  means  of  operation. 

We  will  not  anticipate  the  conclusions  to  which  these  dif- 
ferent facts  shall  bring  the  mind  of  the  Secretary,  with  a 
single  exception.  When  he  shall  have  learned,  as  he  will 
learn,  that  the  heavy  cottons,  combining  much  of  the  raw 
material  with  a small  quantity  of  labor,  which  we  are  now 
exporting  in  such  quantities  along  the  coast  of  China,  and 
even  to  Japan,  to  say  nothing  of  other  parts  of  the  world,  are 
wholly  of  American  origin  as  a manufacture,  he  cannot  fail 
to  perceive  that  the  whole  cotton-growing  region  of  the 
South  is  deeply  interested  in  the  extension  of  this  manufac- 
ture, which  carries  their  staple  into  a new  and  extensive 
market,  which  has  heretofore  been  wholly  supplied  from  cot- 
ton grown  in  the  East.  He  cannot  fail  to  perceive  that 
South  Carolina,  in  establishing  the  cotton  minimum  in  1816, 
was  laying  the  foundation  of  the  most  extraordinary  revolu- 
tion in  commerce  which  the  world  has  ever  seen — the  turning 
back  upon  Asia  her  own  essential  production,  the  manufac- 
ture to  which  her  own  province  of  Calicut  had,  for  centuries, 
given  a name  throughout  the  world ; a revolution,  perhaps, 
more  extraordinary  than  that  which  has  taken  place  in  the 
opinions  of  South  Carolina  herself.  He  cannot  fail  to  per- 
ceive that  there  is  good  ground  for  the  late  movement  of  the 
South  in  throwing  off  the  delusion  of  the  forty-bale  theory, 
and  in  ranging  themselves  on  the  side  of  the  protective  sys- 
tem, of  which  they  share  a full  portion  of  the  benefits. 

One  of  the  greatest  innovations  of  the  tariff  of  1842,  is  the 
change  on  manufactures  of  silk,  from  an  ad  valorem  to  a 
specific  duty  of  two  and  a half  dollars  the  pound  weight. 
The  table  informs  us  that  the  duty  has  amounted  to  25J  per 
cent,  on  the  cost,  producing  a revenue  of  $1,586,000.  This 
change  was  made  at  the  request  of  the  American  importers 
of  silks,  in  order  to  counteract  the  frauds  committed  by  the 
foreign  importers.  The  result  is  believed  to  be  satisfactory 


10 


to  those  best  acquainted  with,  its  operation.  Some  descrip- 
tions of  silk  goods,  doubtless,  pay  a higher  rate  of  duty  than 
others,  but  the  whole  effect  is,  probably,  as  equal  as  any 
other  arrangement.  It  has  the  advantage  of  great  simplicity  : 
at  any  rate,  it  is  wholly  a revenhe  measure.  Leghorn  hats 
produce  a revenue  of  a quarter  of  a million  dollars,  at  a duty 
of  35  per  cent.  The  cotton  bagging,  known  by  the  name  of 
gunny-cloth,  pays  a duty  of  five  cents  the  square  yard, 
amounting  to  113  per  cent,  on  the  cost;  yet  such  is  the  fa- 
cility and  cheapness  with  which  it  is  produced  in  India,  that 
it  continues  to  be  imported  in  small  quantities,  a revenue  of 
6,400  dollars  having  been  derived  from  it.  At  a duty  of  25 
per  cent.,  this  cheap  bagging  would  doubtless  break  down  all 
the  factories  making  hemp  bagging  in  Kentucky  and  Ten- 
nessee ; at  the  same  time,  it  would  furnish  freight  for  some 
thirty  or  forty  ships  from  Calcutta. 

The  table  shows  that  the  duty  on  agricultural  produce  is 
not  wholly  nominal,  as  is  sometimes  contended.  Potatoes 
produce  upwards  of  ten  thousand  dollars  revenue,  at  a rate 
of  duty  amounting  to  thirty  per  cent. ; cheese , upwards  of 
$5,000,  at  a duty  of  67  per  cent.  The  table  gives  a revenue 
of  upwards  of  300,000  dollars  on  raw  cotton,  at  a rate  of  50 
per  cent,  duty : but  this  was,  doubtless,  drawn  back  on  ex- 
port. The  same  is  doubtless  true  of  many  descriptions  of 
manufactures  paying  a high  rate  of  duty,  being  imported  ex- 
pressly for  exportation. 

The  most  unequal  duty  of  the  tariff  is  that  on  wines , 
especially  under  the  construction  put  upon  our  reciprocity 
treaties  by  Mr.  Secretary  Bibb.  He  has  decided  that  Madeira 
wine,  costing  two  dollars  the  gallon,  is  a “ like  article ” with 
the  white  wine  of  France,  costing  less  than  twenty-five 
cents ; and  so  of  others.  The  consequence  is,  that  Madeira 
wine  pays  a duty  of  4 1-10  per  cent. ; Port,  8J ; whilst  the 
duty  on  other  wines  ranges  from  30  to  50  per  cent.  Nothing 
can  put  the  folly  of  arranging  # our  tariff  by  treaty,  in  a 
stronger  light.  An  extension  of  it,  as  proposed  by  the  Zoll- 
verein  treaty,  besides  the  folly  of  tying  up  our  own  hands, 
would  be  opening  a door  to  the  worst  system  of  intrigue  and 


11 


corruption.  It  would  lead  to  a conotan •;  sectional  struggle* 
for  sectional  treaty  favors,  at  whatever  sacrifice  of  other  Coi- 
tions of  the  country. 

We  have  thus  seen  the  operation  of  the  much  abused  tariff 
of  1842,  in  all  the  leading  articles  of  consumption.  We  have 
seen  its  protection  diffused,  as  equally  as  possible,  over  every 
part  of  the  country.  We  think  it  will  puzzle  a wise  man  to 
find  much  to  object  to,  either  in  its  principles  or  its  details. 
On  the  contrary,  we  think  the  country  owes  a debt  of  grati- 
tude to  its  authors,  for  their  skill  and  care  in  its  construction. 
Its  adoption  was  one  of  those  events  which  stamp  a decided 
character  on  the  period  in  which  they  occur.  It  may  be  said 
to  be  the  pivot  on  which  turned  the  fate  of  the  country. 
The  currency  had  been  long  deranged ; with  a deficient 
revenue,  the  credit  of  the  General  Government  had  been  re- 
duced to  the  lowest  ebb  ; trade  was  prostrate ; industry 
paralyzed ; the  public  mind  was  filled  with  apprehension 
and  dismay  at  the  portentous  indications  of  the  future,  when 
this  measure,  adopted  with  the  greatest  difficulty,  carried 
almost  by  miracle,  changed,  as  if  by  enchantment,  the  whole 
scene.  In  the  short  space  of  a year,  the  whole  country 
passed  from  the  depth  of  suffering,  idleness,  and  depression, 
to  a state  of  the  most  active  prosperity,  and  the  fullest  confi- 
dence. No  one  capable  of  tracing  cause  and  effect,  can  doubt 
that  this  change  was  the  direct  and  immediate  result  of  the 
tariff.  This  state  of  full  prosperity  has  met  with  no  check 
to  the  present  time.  Under  the  present  system,  we  have 
nothing  to  fear  but  over-action.  We  may  possibly  go  ahead 
too  fast : there  is  no  other  fear.  We  think  he  must  be  a 
bold  man,  and  that  must  be  a bold  party,  which  will  seri- 
ously, and  in  earnest,  set  about  any  radical  change  in  this 
system — a system  abundantly  showering  its  benefits  over  the 
whole  country,  and  which  has  fully  approved  itself  to  our 
whole  experience. 


' 


REVIEW 

OF  THE 

REPORT  OF  SECRETARY  WALKER 


ON  THE 

TARIFF, 


The  report  of  this  officer  is  always  read  with  a good  deal  of  inter- 
est. It  relates  to  one  of  the  most  important  departments  of  the  Gov- 
ernment; to  that  Department,  at  any  rate,  which  sustains  all  the 
others.  It  is,  besides,  made  the  duty  of  the  Secretary,  in  his  annual 
Report,  in  addition  to  the  estimates  of  the  public  revenue  and  publi  c 
expenditures,  to  lay  before  Congress  “ plans  for  improving  or  increas- 
ing the  revenues  from  time  to  time,”  being,  as  expressed,  “for  the 
purpose  of  giving  information  to  Congress.” 

The  theory  of  our  Government  is,  that  it  is  a Government  of  the 
People.  The  early  practice  under  it  was  for  the  people,  by  their 
delegates  in  the  two  Houses  of  Congress,  to  originate  the  laws  intended 
for  their  own  government,  leaving  the  Executive  branches  to  their 
appropriate  duty  of  carrying  them  into  execution.  The  theory  of 
monarchy  is,  that  all  laws  emanate  from  the  Sovereign,  and  his  Min- 
isters only  have  the  initiative  of  them.  General  Jackson  was  the  first 
President  who  undertook  to  practice  upon  the  monarchical  theory. 
His  successors  of  the  same  dynasty  follow  his  example ; and  we  are 
here,  in  this  Secretary’s  Report,  presented,  not  with  a plan,  but  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  a plan,  to  change  entirely  the  system  by  which  our 
revenue  has  been  collected  since  the  establishment  of  the  Government. 
This  system,  more  especially  adopted  in  1816,  and  sustained  for  thirty 
years  by  all  our  subsequent  legislation,  is  pronounced  by  this  modest 
servant  of  the  people  as  “ unequal , unjust , exorbitant , and  oppressive” 
This  system  he  proposes  to  change  in  favor  of  one  of  which  he  gives 
us,  in  many  words,  a confused  outline. 

We  propose  to  examine,  with  all  the  respect  due  to  a high  officer  of 
the  Government,  some  of  the  assertions,  theories,  and  speculations 
contained  in  this  very  extraordinary  Report. 


14 


His  object,  as  we  were  long  since  informed  by  a letter  under  his 
hand,  published  in  the  newspapers,  was  to  bring  the  tariff  down  to  the 
“ revenue  standard”  Of  course,  much  curiosity  existed  to  learn  what 
he  understood  or  intended  by  this  cabalistic  phrase.  Without  finding 
any  very  precise  definition  of  the  term,  we  have  no  difficulty  in  getting 
at  his  meaning,  especially  after  comparing  it  with  the  President’s 
Message,  in  which  the  theory  is  more  plainly  staled. 

A revenue  duty  is  one  not  only  producing  revenue,  but  must  be  so 
constructed  as  to  avoid  in  the  slightest  possible  degree  becoming  pro- 
tective. A revenue  duty  is  antagonistical  to  a protective  duty.  A duty 
which,  by  design  or  accident,  causes  similar  articles  to  those  on  which 
it  is  levied  to  be  produced  at  home,  so  as  to  lessen  the  revenue,  be- 
comes thereby  protective,  and  must  be  reduced.  Discrimination  may 
be  made  for  revenue,  but  not  for  protection.  A duty  laid  on  articles 
of  which  none  are  imported  cannot  be  collected , and  is  therefore  clearly 
unconstitutional.  These  are  the  fundamental  principles  on  which  the 
new  system  is  to  be  established.  He  thus  states  the  object  of  the  pro- 
tective system : 

“ A protective  tariff  is  a question  regarding  the  enhancement  of  the 
profits  of  capital ; that  is  its  object,  and  not  to  augment  the  wages  of 
labor,  which  would  reduce  those  profits.  It  is  a question  of  per  cent- 
age,  and  is  to  decide  whether  money  vested  in  our  manufactures 
should,  by  special  legislation,  yield  a profit  of  ten,  twenty,  or  thirty 
per  cent.,  or  whether  it  shall  remain  satisfied  with  a dividend  equal  to 
that  accruing  from  the  same  capital  when  invested  in  agriculture, 
commerce,  or  navigation.” 

It  is  difficult  to  say  whether  the  above  paragraph  betrays  a greater 
ignorance  of  the  objects  and  grounds  on  which  the  protective  principle 
was  adopted  and  engrafted  into  our  revenue  system,  or  of  the  most 
common  and  universally  admitted  principles  of  political  economy. 
The  protective  system  was  not  introduced  or  advocated  by  the  pos- 
sessors of  capital,  nor  for  their  benefit.  It  is  a well  known  fact  that 
they  were,  with  few,  if  any  exceptions,  opposed  to  it.  It  was  the 
patriotic  democracy  of  the  country  which  advocated  and  introduced 
the  system.  What  was  the  argument?  The  country  is  wholly  agri- 
cultural and  commercial.  In  the  existing  policy  of  the  world,  we 
produce  more  than  we  can  sell,  except  at  prices  miserably  low.  We 
have  to  buy  our  clothing,  and  other  foreign  productions,  from  abroad, 
at  their  own  prices,  in  payment  of  which  we  are  constantly  being 
drained  of  our  specie,  to  the  derangement  of  our  circulating  medium, 
and  paralysis  of  all  business.  The  proposition  is  to  hold  out  induce- 


15 


ments  to  the  merchants  to  withdraw  a portion  of  their  capital  from 
foreign  trade,  and  employ  it  in  manufactures  and  the  domestic  trade  of 
their  distribution.  We  shall  thus  withdraw  a portion  of  our  labor  from 
agriculture,  and  convert  producers  into  consumers.  We  shall  thus  fur- 
nish ourselves  with  at  least  a portion  of  the  manufactures  which  we 
require,  by  the  labor  of  our  own  citizens,  and  pay  for  them  with  those 
productions  for  which  we  find  no  market,  or  a poor  one.  We  apprehend 
the  question  was  never  started* in  these  discussions,  whether  there 
was  not  danger  that  those  who  should  be  drawn  into  the  new  occupa- 
tions would  make  too  much  money ; because  in  those  days  it  was 
considered  a settled  principle,  confirmed  by  all  experience,  that  any 
business  yielding  profits  above  the  average  rates  is  sure  to  attract 
capital  and  labor  into  it,  until  the  profits  fall  to  the  general  level,  or 
more  usually  for  a time  below  it. 

At  any  rate,  the  protective  policy  was  adopted,  and  men  of  busi- 
ness employed  their  earnings  in  the  new  occupations  to  which  they 
were  invited  by  the  policy  and  laws  of  the  country,  doubtingly  and 
hesitatingly  at  first,  but  afterwards  more  freely  and  confidently.  The 
most  successful  branch,  and  the  one  which  has  absorbed  the  greatest 
amount  of  capital,  is  the  manufacture  of  cotton.  The  possession  of 
the  raw  material  on  the  spot,  and  the  peculiar  adaptation  ^ of  ma- 
chinery to  produce  great  results  in  this  manufacture,  soon  made  it 
evident  that  the  cotton  manufacture  was  rapidly  to  become  one  of  the 
leading  interests  of  the  country.  Capital  went  into  it  freely  and  con- 
fidently. Its  rapid  extension  has  no  parallel,  and  is  only  equalled  in 
the  corresponding  reduction  in  the  price  of  its  fabrics.  Its  success 
furnishes  the  only  ground  of  its  denunciation.  The  manufacturers  are 
growing  too  rich.  That  is  the  whole  burden  of  the  report.  “ Special 
legislation ” in  their  favor.  u Another  form  of  privileged  orders”  We 
regret  to  see  a high  officer  of  the  Government  descending  to  use  the 
stereotyped  slang  of  the  party  newspapers.  But  what  we  pass  by  in 
silence  in  the  Evening  Post,  or  in  the  ramblings  of  the  laborious 
Bundelcund,  ought  not  to  pass  without  censure  when  coming  from  a 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

In  carrying  out  his  views,  we  find  some  very  extraordinary  asser- 
tions. For  instance,  “ Experience  proves  that,  as  a general  rule,  a 
duty  of  twenty  per  cent,  ad  valorem  will  yield  the  largest  revenue.” 
We  should  be  glad  to  know,  what  experience  ? Is  it  that  of  Great 
Britain,  whose  necessities  require  her  to  push  her  duties  up  or 
down  to  what  she  finds  by  experience  to  be  the  highest  revenue 
standard?  Her  duty  on  tea  is  2s.  Id.,  or  50  cents  the  pound,  on  all 


16 


teas  without  discrimination,  being  at  least  200  per  cent,  on  the  cost, 
producing,  for  the  year  ending  January,  1842,  the  comfortable  sum  of 
£3,978,000  as  revenue.  Her  lowest  duty  on  sugar  that  year  was  24s. 
the  cwt.,  or  5J  cents  the  pound,  producing  a revenue  of  £5,120,000, 
upwards  of  twenty-four  and  a half  millions  of  dollars.  It  is  true  this 
duty  on  sugar  has  since  been  reduced,  but  for  relief,  not  for  revenue. 
Her  duties  on  wines  are  os  6d.  the  gallon,  rum  9s.  4d.,  brandy  22s.  6d., 
tobacco  3s.  the  pound,  producing  together  eight  millions  of  pounds,  or 
about  forty  millions  of  dollars,  at  rates  varying  from  300  to  900  per 
cent,  on  the  value.  So  much  for  the  experience  of  England.  What 
is  our  own?  Our  highest  tariff  was  that  of  1828.  Our  greatest 
revenue  was  under  it,  for  the  year  1831,  being  $30,312,851  nett,  at 
rates  of  duty  averaging  41  per  cent,  on  imports  subject  to  duty. 

' (See  Doc.  No.  3,  28th  Congress.)  Our  lowest  tariff  was  in  operation 
in  1842,  being  less  than  24  per  cent,  on  the  dutiable  imports,  and 
produced  a nett  revenue  for  the  year  of  $12,780,173!  So  much 
for  our  own  experience.  We  think  it  would  puzzle  Mr.  Secretary 
Walker  to  furnish  the  evidence  of  what  he  pronounces  to  be  so 
clearly  proved. 

Another  assertion  of  Mr.  Walker  is,  that  the  wages  of  labor  have 
not  augmented  since  the  tariff  of  1842,  but  that  they  have  in  some 
cases  diminished.  Now,  we  find  on  inquiry  of  the  different  agencies 
at  Lowell,  that  the  average  earnings  of  the  operatives  have  increased 
full  one-third  since  the  disastrous  year  1842,  or  from  $1,50  to  full 
$2  per  week  for  females,  exclusive  of  board.  But  even  this  does  not 
present  a fair  view  of  the  full  effect  to  the  tariff  of  1842,  upon  labor. 
At  that  time  the  proprietors  were  receiving  no  dividends,  and  wait- 
ing the  action  of  Congress  before  deciding  to  stop  the  mills.  Had 
Congress  adjourned  without  the  tariff,  more  than  one-half  the  mills 
in  New  England  would  have  stopped  work  at  once.  The  reason  as- 
signed by  the  Secretary  for  his  supposed  fact,  is  entitled  to  some  no- 
tice. “ As  the  capital  invested  in  manufactures  is  augmented  by  the 
protective  tariff,  there  is  a corresponding  increase  of  power,  until  the 
control  of  such  capital  over  the  wages  of  labor  becomes  irresistible.” 
That  is  to  say,  the  greater  the  inducement  to  build  mills,  and  the 
greater  the  amount  invested  in  works  which  are  wholly  unproductive 
without  hands  to  work  them,  the  greater  is  the  power  of  the  mill- 
owners  to  drive  hands  into  them ; in  other  words,  the  power  of  labor 
to  get  high  wages  diminishes  in  proportion  as  the  demand  for  it  is 
increased.  If  a greater  solecism  was  ever  put  upon  paper,  we  should 
be  glad  to  see  it. 


17 


The  whole  force  of  the  report  is  levelled  against  the  tariff  of  1842, 
as  if  that  were  some  new  abomination.  It  is  pronounced  “ unequal, 
unjust,  exorbitant,  and  oppressive.” 

Now,  the  fact  is,  the  tariff  of  1842  was  modelled  upon  the  tariff  of 
1832.  That  was  adopted  as  the  groundwork;  the  principle  was  the 
same,  as  a comparison  will  show  in  the  following  table  : 

Duties  per  tariff  of  1832.  Of  1842. 

Woollens, 50  per  cent., 40  per  cent. 

Flannels, 16  cts.  square  yard,  . 14  cts.  square  yard. 

Pig  iron, 10  dols.  per  ton,  ...  9 dols.  per  ton. 

Rolled  iron, 30  dols.  per  ton,  ...  25  dols.  per  ton. 

Other  bar  iron, 18  do.  ...  17  do. 

Salt, 20  cts.  per  bushel,  . . 8 cts.  per  bushel. 

Brown  sugar, 2£  cts.  per  pound,  . 2£  cts.  per  pound 

Cotton  bagging, 3^  cts.  sq.  yard,  . . 4 and  5 cts.  sq.  yd. 

Cotton  minimum  white  goods, . . 30  do.  . . 20  do. 

Cotton  minimum  dyed  & printed,  35  do.  . . 30  do. 


It  will  be  seen  that  there  was  a general  reduction  on  the  highest 
rates  of  duty.  That  is  to  say,  the  tariff  of  1842  is  less  protective  than 
than  that  of  1832.  The  only  exceptions  are  in  the  articles  of  sugar 
and  cotton  bagging,  which  cannot  certainly  be  laid  at  the  door  of  the 
Northern  manufacturers.  It  is  true,  the  general  rate  of  ad  valorem 
duties  was  raised  from  25  to  30  per  cent.,  but  this  was  done  wholly 
for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  revenue. 

It  becomes,  then,  a matter  of  some  interest,  to  inquire  under  what 
circumstances  the  tariff  of  1832  was  passed.  The  national  debt  had 
been  paid  off,  and  a great  reduction  of  the  revenue  was  necessary. 
The  Jackson  party  had  decided  majorities  in  both  Houses  of  Congress ; 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  consisting  of  upwards  of  thirty.  The 
tariff  of  1832  was  prepared  with  great  care,  on  the  principle  of  raising 
the  necessary  revenue,  so  disposed  as  to  afford  protection  to  our  own 
industry  in  all  its  branches.  Many  of  the  protectionists,  however,  were 
not  satisfied  with  the  duty  on  woollen  manufactures,  high  as  it  was,  as 
not  corresponding  with  the  high  duty  on  wool.  The  bill  passed  the 
House  of  Representatives  by  a vote  of  132  to  65.  It  is  somewhat 
curious  to  find  among  the  yeas  the  names  of  James  K.  Polk  and  Cave 
Johnson.  Of  the  nays,  more  than  one-half  consisted  of  those  who 
voted  against  the  bill  as  not  high  enough  on  woollens,  leaving  not  more 
than  thirty  who  voted  against  the  bill  on  principle,  consisting  of  Mr. 
McDuffie,  and  his  converts  to  the  forty-bale  theory.  In  the  Senate,  the 
same  bill,  fortified  in  the  article  of  woollens,  by  an  addition  of  seven  per 


18 


cent.,  passed  by  a vote  of  32  to  16 — Mr.  Dallas  being  among  those 
voting  in  the  affirmative.  Such  was  the  position  of  the  Democracy 
of  the  country,  on  the  principle  of  discrimination  in  favor  of  protection 
in  1832.  None  of  its  deformities  were  then  discovered.  But  South 
Carolina  did  not  like  this  bill.  She  adopted  the  theory  that  it  im- 
posed a tax  of  40  per  cent,  on  her  exports.  She  threatened  nullifica- 
tion and  rebellion.  General  Jackson,  at  the  next  session  of  the  same 
Congress,  proposed  a reduction  of  the  tariff,  in  order  to  appease  this 
froward  State.  He  admitted  that  “it  would  seem  a violation  of  pub- 
lic faith,  suddenly  to  abandon  the  large  interests  which  had  grown  up 
under  the  implied  pledge  of  bur  legislation,”  and  added  “ that  nothing 
could  justify  it  but  the  public  safety,  which  is  the  supreme  law.” 

The  pretext  for  reduction  was,  that  the  tariff  would  produce  too 
much  revenue — that  Congress  had  not  carried  out  the  reduction  pro- 
posed by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  a bill  which  he  had  at  the 
previous  session  furnished  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  at  their 
request.  There  was  no  foundation  for  this  pretext,  as  was  afterwards 
admitted  by  the  Secretary  himself,  in  a document  which  he  was  called 
on  to  furnish,  (Doc.  97,  2d  sess.,  22d  Cong.,)  showing  that  the  tariff 
of  1832  actually  made  greater  reductions  than  those  proposed  in  his 
own  bill. 

But  under  this  pretext,  what  was  called  Verplanck’s  bill  was  brought 
forward,  and  the  Jackson  party  were  most  of  them  drilled  up  to  the 
mark  of  undoing  their  own  work  of  the  preceding  session.  But  with- 
out success ; for,  after  a violent  effort,  Verplanck’s  bill  was  abandon- 
ed. It  was  in  this  state  of  things,  that  Mr.  Clay’s  Compromise  bill 
was  taken  up  by  the  defeated  party  and  carried  through  the  House, 
against  the  votes  of  the  warmest  friends  of  the  protective  system. 
Mr.  Clay  acted  under  the  mistaken  idea,  put  forward  by  the  adminis- 
tration, that  the  tariff  of  1832  would  produce  more  revenue  than  was 
required  for  the  administration  of  the  Government.  Experience,  arid 
our  present  debt,  have  proved  the  contrary. 

But  with  what  face  can  the  party,  nay,  the  very  men  by  whose 
agency  the  tariff  of  1832  was  passed,  now  come  forward  denouncing 
the  tariff  of  1842— the  same  in  principle,  but  milder  and  more  mode- 
rate in  all  respects  than  that  of  1832 — as  the  abomination  of  abomi- 
nations— as  a new  concoction  of  concentrated  Whiggery  ? Such  is 
the  spirit  of  party.  The  Baltimore  Convention  considered  the  vote 
of  South  Carolina  necessary  to  secure  the  election  of  Mr.  Polk,  and 
the  word  went  forth,  down  with  the  tariff.  The  affiliated  presses  of 
the  party  take  up  the  note,  and  down  with  the  accursed,  the  Whig 


19 


tariff  of  1842,  is  responded  from  the  same  throats  which  cried  ay,  in 
favor  of  a similar  tariff  in  1832.  Thus  are  the  great  interests  of  the 
country  made  the  sport  and  football  of  selfish  politicians,  in  their  eager 
pursuit  of  office.  It  is  this  action  of  our  system  which  makes  so  many 
of  the  statesmen  of  Europe,  and  some  amongst  ourselves,  pronounce 
it  a failure.  We  do  not  agree  with  them.  With  so  much  of  good 
we  must  expect  some  evil.  We  believe  in  a recuperative  power, 
which  will  eventually  set  things  right.  We  must  expect  wrong  meas- 
ures, but  they  will  work  their  own  cure.  It  is  possible  to  sound  the 
depths  of  Democracy  too  low. 

Mr.  Walker  expresses  particular  dislike  to  specific  duties,  includ- 
ing the  cotton  minimums,  which  are,  in  fact,  merely  specific  duties. 
In  this  he  goes  against  the  experience  of  the  whole  world.  He  will 
not  find  a mercantile  man  in  the  whole  country  to  agree  with  him. 
The  difficulty  of  guarding  against  fraudulent  invoices  has  increased 
with  the  increase  of  our  trade,  and  its  tendency  to  fall  into  the  hands 
of  unscrupulous  foreigners,  with  whom  the  custom  of  double  invoices 
is  notorious. 

The  carrying  out  of  Mr.  Walker’s  views  in  this  particular,  would 
not  only  put  our  whole  system  of  revenue  in  peril,  but  introduce  the 
widest  system  of  fraud  and  perjury  which  the  world  has  ever  seen. 
Many  of  the  continental  tariffs,  and  the  famous  Zoll-Verein  in  particu- 
lar, are  wholly  specific,  manufactures  of  cotton,  wool,  and  silk,  being 
rated  by  weight.  The  British  tariff  admits  ad  valorem  duties  in  the 
fewest  possible  cases,  and  then  subject  to  a home  valuation,  at  which 
the  Government  officers  are  at  liberty  to  take  the  goods,  on  paying  an 
addition  of  ten  per  cent.  Mr.  Walker’s  objection  that  specific  duties, 
and  especially  the  cotton  minimum,  throw  unequal  burdens  on  the  la- 
boring classes  and  poor,  compared  to  the  rich,  has  hardly  the  shadow  of 
truth  to  support  it;  so  far  as  respects  the  cotton  manufacture,  not  even 
the  shadow.  It  is  a fact,  which  must  be  admitted  by  all  who  look  into 
the  matter,  that  all  the  coarser  manufactures  of  cotton — all  which  pos- 
sess substance,  and  are  most  profitable  in  use  by  the  laboring  classes, 
are  furnished  by  the  American  manufacturer  on  better  terms  than  they 
can  be  had  in  any  other  part  of  the  world.  In  this  they  challenge 
inquiry.  The  constantly  increasing  demand  for  export  for  this  de- 
scription of  goods,  to  markets  in  which  they  meet  the  British  in  full 
competition,  would  seem  to  be  sufficient  evidence  of  this  fact ; unless, 
indeed,  one  would  adopt  the  discovery  of  the  sagacious  Bundelcund,  that 
the  manufacturers  sell  their  goods  abroad  at  one  htdf  the  'prices  which 
they  obtain  at  home. 

The  Secretary  quotes  from  Document  306,  1st  session,  28th  Con- 


20 


gress,  (Mr.  McKay’s  Report,)  to  show  the  high  duties  payable  on 
certain  manufactures  of  cotton,  adding : “ This  difference  is  founded 
on  actual  importation , and  shows  an  average  discrimination  against 
the  poor  on  cotton  imports  of  82  per  cent,  beyond  what  the  tax 
would  be  if  assessed  upon  the  actual  value.”  Now,  v ith  all  due 
respect  for  Mr.  Walker,  we  must  say,  there  is  no  such  thing.  He 
is  utterly  mistaken.  No  such  importations  have  been  made.  No 
such  horrid  exaction  has  been  practised  upon  the  poor.  His  authority 
is  the  sixth  column  of  table  C,  appended  to  that  Report,  306,  stated 
in  the  table  itself  to  be,  “ The  rates  ad  valorem  of  the  duties  under 
the  present  law,  as  estimated  in  statements  made  to  the  committee, 
upon  the  authority  of  known  and  respectable  merchants  and  import- 
ers in  several  of  the  large  commercial  cities.”  We  find  the  expla- 
nation on  page  72  of  said  Report,  in  the  “Price  Current  issued  by 
Stewart,  Thompson  & Lay,  Manchester,  January  31,  1843  ; with  the 
rate  of  duty  under  the  present  American  tariff  added.”  Here  we  find 
precisely  the  same  rates  of  duty,  being  those  which  would  he  charged , 
on  certain  goods,  if  imported , as  those  given  previously  in  the  sixth 
column,  very  kindly  estimated,  no  doubt,  by  some  Manchester  agent. 
Amongst  them  we  find  “ stouts  or  domestics,”  (imitations  of  ours,)  esti- 
mated to  pay  upwards  of  100  per  cent,  duty,  whilst  they  were  actu- 
ally selling  lower  in  Boston  and  New  York  than  the  prices  quoted  in 
this  very  Manchester  price  current.  This  gross  mistake  of  Mr. 
Walker  is  the  more  extraordinary,  since  the  second  column  of  this 
same  table  C gives  the  actual  rates  ad  valorem  on  goods  coming  un- 
der the  cotton  minimums,  as  made  up  at  the  Treasury , upon  the  actual 
imports,  being  on  the  20t  cent  minimum  49  per  cent.,  and  on  the  30  . 
cent  minimum  43  per  cent.  Thus  vanishes  this  grievance  of  the 
poor  into  thin  air.  But  why,  then,  this  heavy  minimum  duty  on 
goods  which  require  no  such  protection  ? The  whole  matter  is  fully 
explained  in  the  memorial  of  the  citizens  of  Boston  interested  in  the 
cotton  manufacture,  (Document  461,  2d  session,  27th  Congress,)  from 
which  we  make  the  following  extract  from  page  48 : 

“ The  foregoing  analysis  will  have  shown  that  the  question  of  a 
protective  tariff  bears  very  differently  on  different  branches  of  the 
cotton  manufacture.  The  coarser  fabrics,  with  which  we  supply  for- 
eign nations  at  the  rate  of  about  three  millions  of  dollars  per  annum, 
in  free  competition  with  the  British,  it  is  quite  obvious,  are  very  little 
if  any  way  affected , by  any  tariff  whatever.  The  only  effect  of  open- 
ing our  ports  to  this  description  of  goods  at  a very  low  duty,  or  no 
duty  at  all,  would  be  the  influx  of  inferior  British  imitations  made 
from  Bengal  cotton,  but  which  would  prove  to  the  consumer,  intrinsi- 


21 


cally  dearer  than  our  own  manufacture  made  from  American  cotton. 
So  far  as  relates  to  the  finer  qualities  of  plain  cottons,  a very  moder- 
rate  square  yard  duty  will  protect  the  manufactures  now  in  existence. 
It  is  in  reference  to  the  article  of  printed  calicoes,  and  other  fancy 
goods,  that  the  question  of  the  tariff  assumes  its  chief  importance.” 

The  greatest  importance  of  the  minimum  consists  in  its  tendency 
in  constantly  carrying  the  manufacture  up  into  the  finer  and  higher 
branches.  In  this  particular  it  was  never  more  effective  than  at  the 
present  moment.  We  agree  to  Mr.  Walker’s  discrimination  of  “ max- 
imum revenue  duties  upon  luxuries.”  It  is  not  easy  perhaps  to  say 
what  are  luxuries  in  this  country,  where  labor  has  its  luxuries  as  well 
as  the  rich ; but  we  aver,  so  far  as  the  cotton  manufacture  is  concern- 
ed, that  the  effect  of  the  minimum  is  to  collect  a high  duty  on  the 
finer  and  more  costly  branches  of  the  manufacture,  without  affecting 
the  lower  branches  at  all ; so  that,  as  a revenue  duty  merely,  acting 
upon  luxuries,  it  is  the  most  efficient  mode  which  can  be  adopted. 

The  chief  argument,  however,  which  is  expected  to  overthrow  the 
tariff,  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  manufacturers  are  just  now  sharing  large 
dividends — that  the  business  is,  in  fact,  too  profitable.  This  is  accom- 
panied in  the  report  by  the  allegation  that  the  principle  of  protection 
is  legislating  for  the  rich,  for  classes,  for  the  benefit  of  capital , for  the 
few  instead  of  the  many.  However  false  and  absurd,  this  is  the  cry 
which  is  expected  to  break  down  the  tariff,  and  there  is  little  doubt  it 
will  succed ; for  the  party  have  set  up  the  cry,  and  they  have  decided 
majorities  in  both  branches  of  Congress.  Against  such  a cry,  what 
will  it  avail  to  state  that  this  prosperity  is  but  the  reflux  of  that  tide 
whose  long  ebb  in  1842-3  filled  the  hearts  of  the  manufacturers  with 
dismay  ? that  action  and  reaction  are  as  constant  in  the  world  of  trade 
as  in  that  of  nature  ? that,  at  all  events  the  regulating  power  is  in  full 
action,  by  which  all  profits  in  different  occupations  are  soon  brought 
to  the  same  level  by  the  unfailing  laws  of  competition  ? It  is  true 
that  manufactures  have  shared  fully  in  the  general  prosperity,  and 
there  are  instances  in  which  the  profits  of  the  last  year  have  reached 
twenty  per  cent.  There  are  at  Lowell  nine  companies  manufacturing 
cotton,  employing  a capital  of  nine  and  a half  millions.  Of  these,  five 
made  no  dividends  during  the  entire  year  1842.  The  dividends  for 
the  four  years  1842,  1843,  1844,  and  1845,  average  eleven  and  a 
quarter  per  cent,  per  annum  on  the  capital,  from  which  should  be  de- 
ducted about  three-fourths  per  cent,  for  the  risk  of  fire,  leaving  the 
actual  nett  earnings  not  over  ten  and  a half  per  cent,  per  annum. 
This  is  something  more  than  the  same  establishments  will  average 
since  they  have  been  in  operation ; and  these  are  undoubtedly  the 


22 


most  successful  concerns  in  the  country,  far  above  the  average. 
Another  important  fact : the  greatest  profits  have  been  made  by  those 
mills  making  goods  for  foreign  markets,  on  which,  of  course,  the  tariff 
has  no  bearing.  About  one-third  of  this  profit  has  been  in  the  advance 
of  the  raw  material  during  the  year,  the  most  successful  establishments 
having  laid  in  their  entire  stocks  before  the  advance,  equal  to  about 
two  cents  the  pound. 

There  is  also  abundant  evidence  that  the  cotton  manufacture  has 
been  favorably  affected  in  an  equal  or  greater  degree  in  Great  Britain, 
and  that  their  spinners  have  realized  greater  profits  on  their  capital 
than  any  of  our  establishments  whatever.  What  a bugbear  is  this 
clamor  about  enormous  profits,  special  legislation  for  classes,  and  for 
the  rich,  when  analyzed. 

So  far  as  there  is  any  tangible  argument  in  the  report,  it  is  the  argu- 
ment of  the  forty-bale  theory,  that  a tariff  of  duties  upon  imports  is  in 
fact  a tax  upon  exports.  F or  instance,  “ the  true  question  is  whether 
the  farmer  and  planter  shall,  to  a great  extent,  supply  our  people  with 
cheap  manufactures  purchased  abroad  with  their  agricultural  products, 
or  whether  this  exchange  shall  be  forbidden  by  high  duties  on  such 
manufactures,  and  their  supply  thrown  as  a monopoly,  at  large  prices, 
by  high  tariffs,  into  the  hands  of  our  own  manufacturers.”  This  is 
precisely  the  language  used  by  Mr.  McDuffie  in  nullification  times. 
He  follows  him  in  saying  that  we  demand  specie  from  all  the  world  to 
an  extent  which  they  cannot  supply ; at  the  same  time,  with  singular 
inconsistency,  he  advocates  the  Sub-Treasury,  on  the  ground  that  it 
will  facilitate  a larger  supply  of  American  gold  coin,  and  thus  give 
greater  security  to  all  the  business  of  the  country.  It  is  singular  that 
the  Secretary  should  have  adopted  this  exploded  forty-bale  theory  at  a 
time  when  the  South  is  so  decidedly  repudiating  it ; and  that  he  should 
use  this  argument  in  order  to  carry  Northern  votes,  whilst  the  theory,  as 
expounded  by  Mr.  McDuffie,  attributed  the  peculiar  prosperity  of  the 
North  to  the  very  system  of  protection,  only  to  be  accounted  for  on 
the  ground  of  its  being  a robbery  committed  on  the  South. 

The  Secretary  complains  that  the  manufacturers  have  not  generally 
answered  his  circulars.  Is  that  surprising?  We  know  that  some 
answers  were  prepared,  which  were  kept  back  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  due  to  a proper  self-respect.  Mr.  Walker  had  given  public 
notice  that  his  mind  was  made  np  to  a reduction  of  the  tariff  according 
to  a scale  established  in  his  own  mind.  His  object,  therefore,  was  not 
to  collect  information  in  order  to  form  an  opinion,  but  apparently  to 
find  evidence  against  the  manufacturers.  They  thought,  besides,  that 
the  proper  tribunal  for  such  an  investigation  is  a committee  of  Con- 


23 


gress.  To  such  a committee  they  will  readily  exhibit  everything  con- 
nected with  the  subject. 

It  would  occupy  too  much  space  to  notice  all  the  curiosities  of  this 
Report.  The  Secretary  is  utterly  opposed  to  countervailing  restric- 
tions, as  inefficacious — differing  in  this  from  the  high  authority  of 
General  Jackson,  and  in  opposition  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Huskisson, 
who  justified  himself  for  his  relaxations  of  the  navigation  laws  on  this 
ground  solely.  He  quotes  the  repeal  of  the  duty  on  cotton  in  Great 
Britain  as  a voluntary  concession,  when  the  fact  is  notorious  that  it 
was  only  owing  to  the  representations  of  the  Manchester  Chamber 
of  Commerce,  that  the  Americans  were  supplanting  them  in  foreign 
markets  in  heavy  goods,  and  that  the  small  duty  of  2s.  lid.  the  hun- 
dred weight  operated  to  that  extent  as  a bounty  to  th^ir  rivals. 
What  was  the  British  duty  on  cotton  before  the  establishment  of  our 
tariff?  From  1809  to  1814,  25s.  6d.  the  hundred  weight,  or  of  cents 
the  pound.  From  1815  to  1819,  8s.  6d.  the  hundred  weight,  or 
nearly  2 cents  the  pound. 

He  greatly  over-estimates  the  value  added  to  the  cotton  crop  by  man- 
ufacture ; he  supposes  it  increased  in  value  sevenfold,  which  is  nearly 
double  the  fact.  He  recommends,  in  case  of  war,  a reduction  of  duties 
in  order  to  increase  the  revenue.  Mr.  Gallatin,  when  Secretary 
during  the  war  of  1812,  recommended  that  the  duties  should  be  doubled, 
which  advice  was  adopted.  In  fact,  Mr.  Walker  seems  to  be  acting 
under  the  spirit  of  contrariety  to  everything  tried  and  established. 

We  pass  by  his  proposition  of  carrying  on  the  whole  trade  of  Can- 
ada through  the  United  States ; his  drawback  of  one  half  the  duties 
where  American  exports  would  be  taken  in  exchange ; “ his  population 
of  eight  hundred  millions  disabled  from  purchasing  our  products,  by 
our  high  duties  on  all  they  would  sell  in  exchange  “ the  unfettered 
power  of  agriculture  to  break  down  all  restrictions  his  inflated  cur- 
rency repealing  the  operation  of  the  tariff,  &c. 

In  all  honesty  and  sobriety  we  feel  bound  to  say,  that  such  a number 
of  unwarrantable  assumptions,  and  such  a medley  of  puerile  crudities, 
never  before  issued  from  any  department  of  our  Government.  But 
what  of  that  ? It  is  lauded  to  the  skies  in  the  organs  of  the  party,  as 
a new  revelation  in  political  science.  The  policy  is  to  be  carried  out. 
So  be  it.  If  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  are  sick  of  their  prosperity 
under  the  protective  system  which  they  established,  so  be  it.  But  let 
the  additional  imports  of  twenty  or  thirty  millions  per  annum  come  in, 
in  accordance  with  the  object  of  the  policy.  Before  the  second  year 
shall  come  round,  the  currency  will  feel  it,  the  labor  of  the  country  will 
feel  it,  the  party  in  power  will  feel  it,  or  we  are  no  true  prophet. 


